Today, I was going through some old paperwork and came across a standard letter that was sent by Joyce to federal politicians sent 14 months ago. It read, in part ". . . while we continue to invest in the customer experience through a fully refurbished 747 fleet . . . [emphasis added]". That's also been downgraded.
This is a good example of how things can be taken different ways, dependent upon context and the reader's perspective. What Joyce said is correct when looking at QF's future fleet investment plans (which I gather was the point of his letter to the MPs) -
all of the 747s that QF is keeping in the fleet (i.e. nine of them) are being refurbished. Therefore, the (continuing) 747 fleet is being fully refurbished.
However, people could take Joyce's statement - especially if read in isolation, outside of the context that was being discussed - to mean that all of the
current 747 fleet at the time of the statement being made (around 24 or 25 aircraft then, I think) are being refurbished - and that's not the case.
Some people will see that as nit-picking or being misleading. In my job, one of the things I have to do is word official statements about things. Because of that, I've trained myself to read the literal meaning of the words used - assume nothing else, just what the words actually say - in the context of the discussion in which they are used.
That being said, some of the other things that Joyce mentioned - the "Qantasia" airline, for example - have not come to pass. But, especially given the fiduciary responsibilities that companies and directors have, no CEO is going to deliberately mislead the market or the regulators. Especially in a business like aviation, things change. That's the reality, and airlines have to change their plans to adapt.
As someone famous once said - "
when the facts of the situation change, I change my opinion. What do you do?"
Sample AFF with no advertisements? More..
